FlyTheNest

Forum rules

Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.

She added: “Perhaps for the first time ever in the Conservative party people are equally determined that they are not going to get their own way. I am prepared to compromise – they are not – and we are fed up.”

What is never on display from the Brexiters is any kind of practical plan to deliver what they want. That is fundamentally because what they want is undeliverable – in essence, undiluted political nationalism as well as undiluted economic globalism – and secondarily because by refusing to recognize that impossibility they are unable to come up with some diluted version of it which, if not desirable, might at least be achievable.

This week Theresa May has been at pains to say Britain is leaving the single market and will not be in the customs union. At pains. Once again, because party management comes before all else for the leader of this accursed outfit, she is totally unnecessarily allowing the hard right zealots in her party to hold her hostage even though they haven't the numbers, the unity nor the nous to deliver the hard Brexit they want on their terms.

Will the 'sensible' tories ever stand up and be counted, or will they let the country go down the pan.

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

Interesting though to see how you fix the coupon on those bonds ...

That's well beyond my capacity frog.

But the principle seems fine to me. Taking profit-making utilities into public ownership can't possibly be bad for government finances in my simplified view of the world!

What is never on display from the Brexiters is any kind of practical plan to deliver what they want. That is fundamentally because what they want is undeliverable – in essence, undiluted political nationalism as well as undiluted economic globalism – and secondarily because by refusing to recognize that impossibility they are unable to come up with some diluted version of it which, if not desirable, might at least be achievable.

This week Theresa May has been at pains to say Britain is leaving the single market and will not be in the customs union. At pains. Once again, because party management comes before all else for the leader of this accursed outfit, she is totally unnecessarily allowing the hard right zealots in her party to hold her hostage even though they haven't the numbers, the unity nor the nous to deliver the hard Brexit they want on their terms.

Will the 'sensible' tories ever stand up and be counted, or will they let the country go down the pan.

I suppose May's real problem isn't so much the minority of hard Brexit MPs as the majority of hard Brexit Tory voters. Brexit is the only thing keeping the Tories in power. If she goes for a soft Brexit the press will destroy her and the votes could fall away and with them her position as leader. If Barnier forces a soft Brexit upon her at the eleventh hour, however, is it possible she could make it to March 2019 without a leadership challenge and thus without a damaging cliff edge "no deal" break from the EU? Certainly I find it hard to believe she is genuinely pursuing a hard Brexit - no one could possibly want to leave behind that kind of legacy and May seems to me to be a person who cares about their legacy. She will look for opportunities to blame the EU and blame the opposition, to try to convince Tory leave voters she was on their side but constrained by circumstance and the hardliners in the party could struggle to denounce and overthrow her because of the hard Brexit language she has used.

It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.Is she a serious politician?

I do have some sympathy for both Corbyn and May in that they are in an invidious position and someone will be very disappointed by the way they move

It is interesting that May would find it more politically expedient to move to hard Brexit and Corbyn more to the FBPE position. Neither are convinced that provides the way to true salvation really - and I understand why

That does not mean that the tactics and overall competence (of May especially as she actually has something concrete to deliver) cannot be roundly criticised

The people I am still perplexed by are the Tory Remainers - we are told that they are the majority on the backbenchers and are committed to s soft brexit. They have, however, shown no inclination to demonstrate that (apart from very few specific cases) and the excuse that is expected is they do not want to be seen supporting Labour front bench amendments - I find that a really poor excuse. I am not convinced that Soubry and Clarke have too much support on this on the backbenchers either and that we can make some erroneous assumptions of their motivations if we are not careful

Soubry may be saying the right things on Brexit but she has still an appalling record on voting for the destructive policies of this Government so you will not find me showering her with praise and almost treating her as 'one of us' - the arch-architect of a lot of pour problems. Osborne, is also in the same boat

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

I agree it will take some uncharacteristically grown up discussions in public, but perhaps people are ready for this. At least McDonnell has started to make the case.

Governments with sovereign currencies can just issue bonds if it's obvious there is economic benefit. People need to understand this. Essentially it's what was done with the banks isn't it? Though they were much less attractive investment propositions than the utilities.

It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.Is she a serious politician?

,I think May worked long and hard to get where she is, a no small feat given her lack of charm or basic competence, so in terms of paying her dues and waiting her turn, she is certainly a serious politician. I don't think she's deep, but she's certainly proved she's tenacious. She appears determined to see Brexit through and given her general lack of ability it seems to me any Brexit she delivers is unlikely to resemble the Brexit she says she's going for, whether genuinely desired or just for show, as to date she's simply accepted what she's given. As such, bar an election, she seems the best hope for anti-Brexiters.

It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.Is she a serious politician?

,I think May worked long and hard to get where she is, a no small feat given her lack of charm or basic competence, so in terms of paying her dues and waiting her turn, she is certainly a serious politician. I don't think she's deep, but she's certainly proved she's tenacious. She appears determined to see Brexit through and given her general lack of ability it seems to me any Brexit she delivers is unlikely to resemble the Brexit she says she's going for, whether genuinely desired or just for show, as to date she's simply accepted what she's given. As such, bar an election, she seems the best hope for anti-Brexiters.

That last sentence may be correct if certain assumptions are made

The problem she has though is that there are more than 48 MPs who would object to her position and so she would be subject to a leadership challenge if she was going soft on Brexit

The outcome would then depend on who the MPs put in front of the members - the Tory members will go right wing

She will obviously try to stall as much as she can but there are two thins against that - the need to legalise the withdrawal agreement by late spring and the sheer annoyance of the EU who would not seem to be in the mood to offer much in the way of an olive branch to the current mob

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

I agree it will take some uncharacteristically grown up discussions in public, but perhaps people are ready for this. At least McDonnell has started to make the case.

Governments with sovereign currencies can just issue bonds if it's obvious there is economic benefit. People need to understand this. Essentially it's what was done with the banks isn't it? Though they were much less attractive investment propositions than the utilities.

I still feel renationalising water is something Labour just need to do when they get the chance, without too much fanfare. As long as it's in the manifesto, the mandate is there to do it, so they should just do it. That way you don't run the risk of the right wing press turning the policy toxic with big numbers and fake economics, which they will certainly try to do.

I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

Certainly works well enough, but then so does Scottish water, which is nationalised. I'm not certain, but a straight renationalisation would seem more straightforward to achieve. How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?

(cJA edit)If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.

Good, stay the hell out.By the way, national government didn't have a problem running roughshod over community objections there in favour of private industry, did they?

Quote:

"energy secretary Greg Clark has ordered the start of drilling at Kirby Misperton to be put on hold pending an investigation into the “financial resilience” of Third Energy. Clark’s move, taken after the collapse of outsourcing firm Carillion, came as protest groups and Labour politicians drew attention to the fact that Carillion’s former chief executive, Keith Cochrane, is now the non-executive chairman of Third Energy."

Alan Whitehead MP, shadow minister for energy and climate change, said: “The Tories continue to press ahead with fracking across Yorkshire against the wishes of local communities, despite the environmental risks and suggestions that the economic opportunities are considerably less than initially projected.

“Serious questions need to be asked as to why the instability of this company was only noticed now, just before fracking was due to start and worryingly there appears to be an element of involvement of former Carillion executives in the company.

“Labour would ban fracking, instead investing in renewable and low-carbon energy projects to build the clean economy of the future.”

(cJA edit)If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.

I think we're at cross purposes. If the buyer is the government, then that's what I would describe as a straightforward renationalisation, which I thought would be easier to achieve than a Welsh Water arrangement, where a not-for-profit company picked up the pieces of a collapsed super utility which the for profit sector appeared to pass over on account of its liabilities. i.e. it came about haphazardly rather than the result of a deliberate plan. Renationalisation just makes more sense to me as a deliberate plan.

(cJA edit)If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.

I think we're at cross purposes. If the buyer is the government, then that's what I would describe as a straightforward renationalisation, which I thought would be easier to achieve than a Welsh Water arrangement, where a not-for-profit company picked up the pieces of a collapsed super utility which the for profit sector appeared to pass over on account of its liabilities. i.e. it came about haphazardly rather than the result of a deliberate plan. Renationalisation just makes more sense to me as a deliberate plan.

I didn't know about Welsh Water !

Willow904 wrote:

frog222 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

Certainly works well enough, but then so does Scottish water, which is nationalised. I'm not certain, but a straight renationalisation would seem more straightforward to achieve. How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?

Make them an offer they can't refuse

Do it by regions I supppose...

It'd have to be an exchange of some sort, they getting some sort of bonds, probably very long term as discussed by Richard Murphy. At the mom they are making out like utter and complete bandits, so pressure must be applied, perhaps through chasing up the tax cheating angle .

Gove at Environment has already been doing some of that, some already closing their offshore entities, but much more to be done on those crazy debt leverls v. dividends (see Carillion) ...

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum